Glyphosate in Breast Milk – Danger for Infants?

Of course it is.

Glyphosate: Glyphosate-containing herbicides are the top-selling herbicides in the world and are sold under trademarks such as Monsanto’s ‘Roundup’.

There is currently no regulatory limit for the amount of glyphosate in breast milk anywhere in the world. Why not?

Because Monsanto and regulatory bodies worldwide have based all of their regulations on the assumption that glyphosate is not bio-accumulative. Senior Monsanto scientist, Dan Goldstein, even recently stated, “If ingested, glyphosate is excreted rapidly, does not accumulate in body fat or tissues, and does not undergo metabolism in humans. Rather, it is excreted unchanged in the urine.”(2)

The discovery of levels of glyphosate in breast milk is a source of concern as the data suggests that glyphosate is actually bio-accumulative; building up in people’s bodies over a period of time.

Earth Open Source Research Director Claire Robinson said, “Regulators and industry always say it is the dose that makes the poison, and even the increasing levels of glyphosate currently found in food and feed and the environment are not a problem. However, that argument only holds true if glyphosate doesn’t build up in the human body and is excreted as fast as we take it in. These breast milk results suggest glyphosate may bio-accumulate. That means that our body tissues might be exposed to higher levels than the so-called safe levels set by regulators. So the regulations are not protecting us.”

Of course, the tiny study done by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, has been criticized as not being professional or large enough to prove much but to quote someone involved in the study:

“Zen Honeycutt was able to find ONE lab who was willing to test volunteers for glyphosate and for a very reasonable price. I was one on the volunteers who bought the kit and submitted samples. We all want independent and more scientific studies, but not only they are very expensive, but labs and scientists decline to do it so Monsanto doesn’t destroy their careers or businesses. That’s why it is important to get involved, to educate everybody we have contact with, because the government is not going to protect us from these greedy corporations. We have to save ourselves.”

“It’s telling indeed that even among health-conscious eaters there’s still such a high level of glyphosate residue.”

“Monsanto and the US government have such vast resources that it would cost them relative pennies to perform real safety studies on glyphosate as well as GMOs, especially if they really thought the studies were flawed, instead of just shouting them down and censoring them. This is an implicit acknowledgement on Monsanto’s part that these studies are valid, Perhaps their concern is that replicating them would give similar results. They fear what the results would be and scientific testing would find these products to be unsafe for human health.”

The new US testing by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse also found maximum glyphosate levels in urine over 10 times higher than those found in Europe.

"... California just dealt Monsanto a blow as the state’s Environmental Protection Agency will now list glyphosate — the toxic main ingredient in the U.S.’ best-selling weedkiller, Roundup — as known to cause cancer."

Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm are required to be listed and published by the state. Chemicals also end up on the list if found to be carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — a branch of the World Health Organization.

In March, the IARC released a report that found glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen.” Besides the “convincing evidence” the herbicide can cause cancer in lab animals, the report also found: “Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the U.S.A., Canada, and Sweden reported increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustments to other pesticides.”

"Monsanto was seemingly baffled;

by the decision to place cancer-causing glyphosate on the state’s list of nearly 800 toxic chemicals. Spokesperson for the massive company, Charla Lord, told Agri-Pulse that “glyphosate is an effective and valuable tool for farmers and other users, including many in the state of California. "

Here comes the real reason they will fight the listing --

"During the upcoming comment period, we will provide detailed scientific information to OEHHA about the safety of glyphosate and work to ensure that any potential listing will not affect glyphosate use or salesin California.”

Hmmm... glyphosphate is an herbicide, a weed killer. It is the main ingredient in the popular spray, RoundUp. What's so baffling, sunning? How can this be up for debate that it is a deadly substance? The suffix 'cide' is a "dead" giveaway. Here is another 'cide' word, Monsanto...homicide. That's what you're doing passing this off as safe for consumption.

Roundup is sprayed on crops around the world, particularly with Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready varieties — genetically engineered to tolerate large doses of the herbicide to facilitate blanket application without harming crops.

Yes, you're reading it right, Monsanto also genetically engineers the food crop so it can tolerate being sprayed. (So I guess we will have to wait till they genetically modify humans to tolerate it as well.)

Get ready Monsanto, I think the wolf is at your door...

On Thursday, an appeals court in Lyon, France, upheld a 2012 ruling in favor of farmer Paul Francois, who claimed he had been chemically poisoned and suffered neurological damage after inhaling Monsanto’s weedkiller, Lasso. Not surprisingly, the agrichemical giant plans to take its appeal to the highest court in France.

The median survival for children with DIPG is less than 1 year from diagnosis (Mandell, 1999; Cohen, 2011), and no improvement in survival has been realized in more than three decades (Warren, 2012). The reason for this stagnancy has, at least in part, been attributed to our lack of understanding of the biology of this disease. What is the other part, no financial incentive perhaps?

MIND YOU: Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas are the most common brainstem tumors in children, representing 75–80% of pediatric brainstem tumors.

In the past few years, considerable coordinated and collaborative efforts have been made to address this. Notably, more has been published on the biology and pathophysiology of DIPG in the past 5 years than in all prior years combined, generating a groundswell of excitement and cautious enthusiasm. This is truly great.

How to best apply this data to the treatment of children with DIPG remains to be seen, but improved outcome for these patients is anticipated as we move beyond empiric therapy and attempt to bridge the gap between bench and bedside (Warren, 2012). Let’s not make it another several decades, please.

WHY DOES IT TAKE DECADES TO BRING A NEW DRUG TO CHILDREN?

Well, it goes something like this:

Pharmaceutical companies spend time, expertise and money to discovery and development.

After the pharmaceutical companies develop a new drug (many times it's not so new, they revamp an old one), they send out proposals to universities and research institutions to conduct more research and clinical trials.

The FDA, then has to sift through an enormous report put together by the same pharmaceutical company that has a vested interest in getting this approved.

There is also the laborious task of working out the ethical kinks that will inevitably come up when dealing with a high-risk, vulnerable population.

Pediatric cancers are considered rare (only by those who haven't gone to a pediatric cancer ward and seen it so crowded that it's standing room only), so many companies feel that market/revenue potential is too small, so few drug companies bother with trials specifically for childhood cancer.

A report by the Institute of Medicine, a non-profit group that advises the government on health policy, states, approximately half of the oncology drugs used in pediatric oncology are at least twenty years old.

"Despite a wealth of tantalizing leads from basic science, there is a near-complete void in commercial R&D for pediatric cancer. As devastating as cancer is in children, the numbers affected are too small to drive innovation in the private sector."Institute of Medicine

The treatments available today just don't cut it. Trust me, we tried every one. Especially with pediatrics, there is always the question -"Which will kill my child first, the cancer or the chemo?"Unacceptable

Also unacceptable, are the politics and traditions that surround getting treatment to those who need it now, not years later. These kids don't have months, let alone years!

A well-wisher said to me when I was explaining the foundation, “My sense is this will really work for you; just give it some time. "I welcomed the optimism but that belief that ‘with time’ it will work, is exactly what I’m fighting against. These kids don’t have time.

Lucia ran out of time and nothing will make up for that.

For those of you who feel that I sound angry, too aggressive -check out this New York Times article on Research System.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

Put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, and in five years there’d be a shortage of sand. Milton Friedman

National Research Council. Making Better Drugs for Children with Cancer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.

Microwave popcorn bags are made of paper, but the inside of the bag has to be coated with something that will repel grease and moisture. When the mix of chemicals used to coat microwave bags is heated, some compounds are known to break down into a substance called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

Here’s the bad news:

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, PFOA has been identified as a likely carcinogen.

Here's the worse news:

Not only is the bag coated with a carcinogen, but so is the fake butter flavoring!

"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health determined that a disease that destroys lung tissue was triggered by exposure to the artificial butter flavoring. What's in the fake butter? Diacetyl. It gives artificial butter it's flavor and smell. This is an FDA-approved chemical that is also found in many wines, cookies, candies, beers, and cheese-flavored products."

Here's the worser news:

They've known about this for years! Over a decade!

"In 2001, a report noted that 130 plant employees had twice the national average rates of bronchitis and asthma and more than three times the rate of obstructed breathing. In November 2005,the popcorn plant settled their lawsuits out of court. Four other cases involving seven workers went to trial and resulted in verdicts that added up to more than $50 million dollars in compensation for the workers."

Here's the worstest news of all:

It's still on the market. Who's running this outfit anyway? What's so difficult? Even the simplest form of life is known to move away from things that will hurt it...oh, yeah, I see the difference now - there's simple life and low life.

Guess who's running Congress.

"Congress has been working on a bill to order quick action (don't make me laugh) by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to limit exposure to diacetyl. The House of Representatives passed a bill last year but the Senate has not acted."

Mind You: Back in 2006, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers petitioned the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration to pass an emergency temporary standard to protect workers from the deleterious health effects of inhaling diacetyl vapors. The petition was followed by a letter of support signed by more than thirty prominent scientists. The matter is still under consideration.

So, between Diacetyl, PFOA and trans fatty acids (oh, you KNOW they're in there), you may be persuaded to dust off that old popcorn popper you got in high school.

The South trails the rest of U.S. in childhood cancer rate- Researchers seek reasons for CDC findings.

Surprising research suggests childhood cancer is most common in the Northeast and least common in the South, results that even caught experts off-guard. The highest rate was in the Northeast, while the lowest was among children in the South. The rates for the Midwest and West were nearly identical.

mind you: when you look at the numbers, we are talking about an extra 20 kids in the Northeast. Personally, I don’t feel this info warranted spending a gazillion dollars that could have been spent on life-saving research.

But some specialists say it could just reflect differences in reporting. Some experts suggested that could mean cases were under-reported in the South and over-reported elsewhere.

I can understand under-reporting but how do you over-report a kid with cancer, list him/her twice? This is one list no parent wants their kid on, so I doubt the over-reporting idea.

The large government study is the first to find notable regional differences in pediatric cancer.

Get ready, here it comes…

Experts say it also provides important information to bolster smaller studies.

Sounds more like career-saving research instead of kid-saving research.More money, down the tubes.

Li, Jun, et al. "Cancer incidence among children and adolescents in the United States, 2001–2003." Pediatrics 121.6 (2008)

Survival: Examines how long after diagnosis people live. Cancer survival is measured in a number of different ways depending on the intended purpose. Several examples of survival statistics are listed below.

Survival, Cause-specific: A measure of net survival that is calculated by using the cause of death listed on death certificates to estimate the proportion of deaths due to cancer.

Survival, Net: Survival from cancer that is calculated in the absence of other causes of death. It represents a hypothetical situation where the only possible cause of death is cancer. Can be calculated as either relative survival or cause-specific survival.

Survival, Observed: An estimate of the probability of surviving all causes of death for a specified time interval calculated from the cohort of cancer cases. Observed survival does not consider cause of death, it simply looks at who is alive and who is not. Sometimes referred to as overall survival .

Survival, Period: A newer method for calculating survival that uses only information from the most recent calendar years available. This method is believed to give a more recent estimate than previously-used methods and may take newer treatment modalities into account more effectively than other methods.

Survival, Relative: A measure of net survival that is calculated by comparing observed (overall) survival with expected survival from a comparable set of people that do not have cancer to measure the excess mortality that is associated with a cancer diagnosis.

You didn't know there were so many ways of surviving, did you?

I thought the intended purpose was to... SURVIVE.

The only one definition that counts!

sur·viv·al (sər-vī'vəl) noun.

The act or process of surviving.

The fact of having survived.

Surviving long enough to go to 5th grade, graduate high school & college, etc.

What they don’t mention is how long they “survive.”Other than leukemia, you're lucky if you get five years, extremely lucky.

On World Cancer Day, the 4th of February 2009, the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) launched ‘I love my healthy active childhood’. The aim of the campaign is to raise public awareness worldwide of the irrefutable link of diet, physical activity and obesity with the development of cancer and, in light of this, to encourage children to incorporate both a healthy diet and regular exercise into their daily lives.

Uh huh, if it were only that simple . Yes, it will improve the quality of health and it will protect from other diseases but it still won’t protect them from cancer.

I don't disagree that it is very important to eat well and exercise. I disagree with the impression that it gives parents a sense of false protection.

Healthy, extremely active, perfect weight, vitamin-taking LuciaGirl and many other kids still get cancer and die.

Among the recent research grants awarded by the National Cancer Institute is one for a study asking whether people who are especially responsive to good-tasting food have the most difficulty staying on a diet. Another study will assess a Web-based program that encourages families to choose more healthful foods.

Studies like the one on tasty food received a grant of $100,000 over two years.

It's based on the idea that since obesity is associated with an increased risk of cancer, understanding why people have trouble losing weight could lead to better weight control methods, which could lead to less obesity, which could lead to less cancer. NYT